HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » a petition to ban pension...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:15 PM

a petition to ban pensions for federally elected officials

congress was never supposed to be a career. Its time to ban pensions for federally elected officials (congress and the president). let them serve their terms and then get a real job
http://wh.gov/NWLS

90 replies, 4320 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 90 replies Author Time Post
Reply a petition to ban pensions for federally elected officials (Original post)
rdking647 Dec 2012 OP
Downwinder Dec 2012 #1
rdking647 Dec 2012 #2
CreekDog Dec 2012 #4
rdking647 Dec 2012 #6
CreekDog Dec 2012 #13
rdking647 Dec 2012 #14
CreekDog Dec 2012 #49
Ken Burch Dec 2012 #48
Downwinder Dec 2012 #59
exboyfil Dec 2012 #3
rdking647 Dec 2012 #7
former-republican Dec 2012 #8
CreekDog Dec 2012 #10
former-republican Dec 2012 #15
CreekDog Dec 2012 #17
former-republican Dec 2012 #22
CreekDog Dec 2012 #23
former-republican Dec 2012 #25
CreekDog Dec 2012 #26
former-republican Dec 2012 #29
CreekDog Dec 2012 #47
former-republican Dec 2012 #55
elleng Dec 2012 #80
CreekDog Dec 2012 #84
liberalhistorian Dec 2012 #30
former-republican Dec 2012 #32
former-republican Dec 2012 #37
hfojvt Dec 2012 #90
liberalhistorian Dec 2012 #28
former-republican Dec 2012 #31
liberalhistorian Dec 2012 #68
WinniSkipper Dec 2012 #73
elleng Dec 2012 #82
CreekDog Dec 2012 #50
Xithras Dec 2012 #58
exboyfil Dec 2012 #62
former9thward Dec 2012 #75
PSPS Dec 2012 #5
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #34
PSPS Dec 2012 #44
msongs Dec 2012 #9
CreekDog Dec 2012 #12
WillyT Dec 2012 #11
madinmaryland Dec 2012 #24
WillyT Dec 2012 #38
madinmaryland Dec 2012 #43
Bozita Dec 2012 #45
Gidney N Cloyd Dec 2012 #67
Silver Swan Dec 2012 #83
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #16
CreekDog Dec 2012 #18
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #20
CreekDog Dec 2012 #21
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #39
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #27
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #40
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #64
former-republican Dec 2012 #42
CreekDog Dec 2012 #46
former-republican Dec 2012 #56
CreekDog Dec 2012 #57
former-republican Dec 2012 #60
CreekDog Dec 2012 #61
former-republican Dec 2012 #72
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #63
rdking647 Dec 2012 #70
Matariki Dec 2012 #19
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #35
Matariki Dec 2012 #85
TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #33
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #36
kentauros Dec 2012 #41
CreekDog Dec 2012 #52
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #66
Ken Burch Dec 2012 #51
wickerwoman Dec 2012 #53
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #65
rdking647 Dec 2012 #71
wickerwoman Dec 2012 #74
CreekDog Dec 2012 #78
LeftInTX Dec 2012 #54
lonestarnot Dec 2012 #69
aquart Dec 2012 #76
forestpath Dec 2012 #77
CreekDog Dec 2012 #79
forestpath Dec 2012 #86
CreekDog Dec 2012 #87
rdking647 Dec 2012 #88
former-republican Dec 2012 #89
Faux pas Dec 2012 #81

Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:30 PM

1. I would, except I am banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downwinder (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:33 PM

2. thats why multiple email addresses come in handy :-)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:36 PM

4. why did you abandon your other thread moments after you created it?

you know, the thread where you wanted Pelosi and Reid to resign because Republicans wouldn't agree with them?

what's up? playing with us?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021907522

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:13 PM

6. since i was resoundly ripped as a "rethug" etc

i didnt bother.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:35 PM

13. you act surprised, but you were careless in your post, blaming Pelosi and Reid

blaming Democrats for Republicans not agreeing with them.

blaming Democrats because Republicans won't agree to raise taxes on the wealthy and blaming Democrats because they won't agree with Republicans to shred the social safety net.

no wonder everyone thought you were a Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:51 PM

14. i blame both sides

im not a blind partisan. claiming that the GOP is 100% responible is just blind partisanship

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:44 AM

49. uh huh



sure you are or aren't. whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downwinder (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:43 AM

48. from Whitehouse.gov? Christ, what the hell did you POST there?

(if you feel like answering, send me a pm, so whatever it is doesn't get you in trouble here as well).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:10 AM

59. I just suggested that if there were any cuts in SS or Medicare

Last edited Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)

they should make provisions for euthanasia pills. Then I asked for a response. I got a response from a suicide hot line. I could not get in after that and when I requested a password recovery nothing came. I still contend that a pill would be better than starvation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:33 PM

3. So only rich folks can serve long term in Congress?

I think a good compensation package helps to emphasize that they are the people's servents. On the flip side you could change their pension to a defined contribution one. That would give them good portability for leaving.

If you want to limit their terms, then limit them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:13 PM

7. they can have 401k's like everyone else

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:16 PM

8. All public sector jobs should be like that.

 

No life time pensions should ever be provided by tax payers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:11 PM

10. you're against pensions for government workers?

what about workers who have been working for 30 years on the agreement that they would get a pension?

oh, but maybe you aren't a former republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:51 PM

15. oh, but maybe you aren't a former republican

 

Oh that's fucking original.

Did you think that up all your self..............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:56 PM

17. not all by myself

everyone at DU was on a committee that wrote it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:11 PM

22. This is where I stand on pensions in the public sector

 

The government should not be able to cancel anyone who has been hired under the current contract.

But federal pensions need to be eliminated . I don't want to hear the bullshit about serving and making less
money than a private sector job. If someone thinks they can make more money in the private sector
have a ball and go find a job .

The government will have no problem filling positions that are needed.

Pay into social security , have a 401K just like everyone else.

It is obscene that a person can work for 20 or 30 years and be paid a pension on tax payers dime for an additional
25 or 30 years or how ever long they live.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:14 PM

23. many government workers aren't allowed to invest like private sector workers

there are whole groups of workers that cannot invest in energy companies, or financial companies directly.

also most government workers are covered by ethics rules that prevent a lot of consulting or side work in their field.

i think you're posting an anti-progressive thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:19 PM

25. If it's a 401 k

 

They wouldn't be doing it directly.

They are not picking individual stocks.

(the employee)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:22 PM

26. but there are limits to how much one can put in a 401k per year

so that won't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:26 PM

29. I'm not following you , Do you mean the tax reasons ?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:41 AM

47. wow, seems like you don't know what you're talking about --and recommending do you?



therefore your advice is crap.

http://taxes.about.com/od/retirementtaxes/qt/401k-contribution-limits.htm

The maximum amount a person can contribute to his or her is set each year by the IRS after taking inflation into account. For the year 2013, people can contribute up to $17,500 as an elective deferral to their employer's 401(k) plan. Additionally, if you are age 50 or older, you can contribute an additional catch-up contribution of $5,500.
401(k) Contribution Limits by Year

For 2013: $17,500 ($23,000 if age 50 or older)
For 2012: $17,000 ($22,500 if age 50 or older)
For 2011: $16,500 ($22,000 if age 50 or older)
For 2010: $16,500 ($22,000 if age 50 or older)
For 2009: $16,500 ($22,000 if age 50 or older)
The 401(k) limit applies to all 401(k) accounts you might have for the current year. If you work at two or more jobs or switch jobs in the middle of the year, then you may need to track your 401(k) contributions yourself to ensure that you don't contribute over the limit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #47)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:29 AM

55. No shit Einstein

 

Do you know why those limits are set?

TAX REASONS


get it now...

Or do I have to explain why someone can't put as much as they want in a 401k?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:17 PM

80. Can invest, but can't go in and out quickly,

can't be seen as playing on their 'inside' knowledge. Husb works at SEC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #80)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:28 PM

84. That only applies to him and people in his type of positions -other agencies have other requirements

if you're saying that people in government are always allowed to invest everywhere --you are wrong.

different parts of government have prohibitions on certain types of investments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:29 PM

30. First of all, there's a huge difference

between "federal" pensions and those for state and municipal public workers. A HUGE difference. And second, do you include lawenforcement in that, whose jobs often leave people physically and/or mentally drained or incapacitated after twenty years? And do you include your beloved military in that also, since career military are the ones who take the most advantage of being able to retire early with a full pension and benefits? I don't resent public workers at all, I resent four billion dollars of my tax money going to the military EVERY FUCKING WEEK. Why don't people like you ever complain about THAT bullshit and tax waste?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:33 PM

32. I include everybody in the public sector

 

No more pensions on tax payer dime ..period

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:42 PM

37. law enforcement in that, whose jobs often leave people physically and/or mentally drained

 

You ever see a private sector auto mechanic after 20 years or 30 years? Hands and knees are shot.
How about a private sector mason ? Or a private sector electrician who can't move his hands anymore from stripping wire after 20 years.

Those jobs aren't noble enough for you? They have to be in law enforcement to deserve a tax payer funded pension?

No one deserves one unless it's for everyone......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 03:50 PM

90. federal government workers have been paying in to social security

since at least 1985 when I was hired by the federal government as a GS-7 at Hill AFB.

The federal pension, which was another 2% or 2.5% taken out of my paycheck, and probably was NOT THAT good. Being 24, I did not look into it. I just took my money out after I quit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:24 PM

28. Except that it isn't "provided by taxpayers".

They pay a good amount each paycheck into their own damn pension, it is NOT free. And they work damned hard serving the public for it also, doing jobs and services that need to be done and that would cost taxpayers a helluva lot more than they could afford having to do it all and pay for it all themselves. There shouldn't even be such a thing as a 401(k), you can work for decades and have it all gone through a couple of mouse clicks of Wall Street players.

And they often aren't sitting on "easy street" or some such republican myth horseshit, either (that would be the aforementioned Wall Street goons playing with other people's money that the RW's seem to love so much). My parents worked for forty years and now most of their pensions goes to pay for his nursing home care (that he needed when he was only in his early sixties before he could even enjoy retirement) before Medicaid kicks in its share, and mom is a virtual pauper who got shit for her decades of hard work because of that. Screw anyone who would call them moochers or resent the pensions they worked for and paid into.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:31 PM

31. That's a load of bull , government pensions far exceed what they ever pay into them

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:51 AM

68. Yeah, you go ahead and tell my mother that,

who gets nothing after working her ass off for forty fucking years. And Wall Street/corporate executive pay far exceeds what they ever put into them or actually do to "earn" them (which is sit back and enjoy the hard work of the employees who get it for them) and corporate profits are at the highest ever with the corresponding lowest ever wages. But I don't see you complaining about that. No, it's more fun to blame everything on the worker drones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:33 AM

73. When I worked in State Govt

 

it was 2% employee contribution, 8% State contribution

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:24 PM

82. Our pension contributions are invested in markets

so we can continually be paid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:44 AM

50. seems like you two believe the exact same non-democratic policy

at least you could come together to support each other in this position right here.

imagine that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:02 AM

58. Members of Congress are paid $174,000 a year.

That's a solid upper middle class income, and like others in their income bracket, they can fully afford to fund their own retirement. Very few American white collar professionals in that income range recieve pensions.

Who knows, it might make them a bit more sympathetic when writing laws that impact OUR retirements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #58)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:57 AM

62. For the $174K they have to maintain two homes

They have to live their lives with the understanding that they can likely be fired in 2 or 6 years.

I agree with making their retirement compensation defined contribution (I think all pension plans should be structured in that fashion over time). Defined benefit, like Social Security, relies on the future behavior of the granting organization - obviously can be dicey.

I am back to my point that I would like to get talented individuals who are not rich in Congress. Compensating them well while they are there is a small price to pay to open up that opportunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #62)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:45 PM

75. They "have to live their lives"?

No they don't. No one forces them to run for office. And most people do not have the guarantee of 2 years or 6 years of good employment. Most people can be fired tomorrow. Also they all have office expense accounts so they are not using the 174k for most of their expenses. That said I do agree with your last sentence. Elimination of pensions would just mean only the rich could serve in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:47 PM

5. They don't need any pensions. Their benefactors give them a job or golden parachute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:39 PM

34. So instead of pushing for PRIVATE sector employees to get decent pensions, you want to screw PUBLIC

 

sector employees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:03 AM

44. Huh? I was replying to the OP.

He was saying we should strip "federally elected officials" of pensions. I presume he was referring to congress and this would be a way to "punish" them for their stance on retirement security for the rest of us (i.e., slashing medicare, Social Security, etc.)

I was pointing out that, given the corruption of our congress these days, the last thing they rely on is their salary and retirement afforded them by their office. They feed on the mega bucks that have corrupted them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:49 PM

9. add getting rid of their health care while serving and afterwards nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:28 PM

12. I don't understand why folks like Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders should lose pension and health care

they aren't wealthy, they work hard, they work for people of modest means.

i don't get it.

and i don't get the hate against government workers, who do mostly have to retire based on their 401k and social security since their pensions (federal) are small.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:23 PM

11. No... Joe Walsh, Of Tea Party Fame, Should Get 2 Years Worth Of Pension...

He served 2 years.

Scott Brown of Mass. Fame should get 4 years.

The person who spent a "lifetime" in congress should be fully covered... within reason.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:18 PM

24. Actually, Joe Walsh, of Eagle's fame, should get more pension than the Joe Walsh

of teabagger fame!!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madinmaryland (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:44 PM

38. LOL !!! - Good Joe v. Bad Joe...






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:00 AM

43. Good Joe pays all of his hotel bills (even though he doesn't remember them), the Bad

Joe doesn't pay any of his child support payments (even though he DOES remember them).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:26 AM

45. Did you mean "pension" or "prison"?

Mighta been a typo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:49 AM

67. While I support pensions for congress, it should take longer than 1 term to be vested.

In my system it takes something like 7 years. You leave before that and they refund your contributions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:28 PM

83. Congressional pensions are

like other Federal pensions in that they require five years of work in order for the worker to be vested. Walsh's two years won't get him a Federal pension, but he also earned social Security credit for those years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:54 PM

16. Absolutely not.

All workers deserve a pension. What an absolutely ridiculous idea. Only the very wealthy would be able to afford to serve in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:56 PM

18. thank you

if the problem is that some people don't get pensions, then the solution is to make sure everybody gets pensions --not to take them away from people who do. jeez.

i see this kind of logic on DU sometimes. somebody is getting some benefit, even if they get it from employment --so the thought is that to make it fairer, we have to take away the benefit rather than make sure others get a similar benefit.

by this way of thinking, we're going to have to knock everyone down to minimum wage and no benefits to solve all our problems and i don't think that's sensible.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:07 PM

20. Yes. We have a war on public workers.

It used to be that public employees had good pensions and benefits but the trade off was lower salaries. Most of us understood that was how the system worked. But now we have this attitude that public employees are overpaid and have better pensions than any other workers. And teachers have tenure which means you can never fire them.

The misconceptions are alarming, especially from progressives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:09 PM

21. yes, that's a big problem

and some progressives are fooled, however...

in this case, I'm not so sure that the people here advocating this aren't Republicans or conservatives anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:48 PM

39. Yep. I wonder at times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:24 PM

27. These are not "public workers," they're elected officials.

Pensions for Civil Service employees? Sure. Firefighters and police officers? Of course. Teachers? Duh! Yeah.

Some Super PAC-supported bagman who will collect a fortune as a paid lobbyist? Uh. Not so much.

Want a pension? Don't go into politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:49 PM

40. They are public workers too.

All workers deserve a pension. Shouldn't matter how they got the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:36 AM

64. No. They really aren't.

Elected officials go to Washington after first proving their merits in the public or private sector (where they likely earned a pension), spend a brief amount of time in the Capitol, and then go back to private life.

Pensions assume that you're going to hold the job long term. Politics shouldn't be a career.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:52 PM

42. Pensions for Civil Service employees? Sure. Firefighters and police officers?

 

Why do you think they deserve them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #42)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:39 AM

46. i think everybody deserves a proper pension

private and public sector workers alike.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:37 AM

56. But that's not the case , is it ...Some are better than others...and it seems you approve

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #56)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:59 AM

57. i don't think taking away pensions from public workers is the way to make it fair

you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #57)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:36 AM

60. I think I made my self quite clear

 

It's for everyone or for no one.

Since I like dealing in reality and not wishful thinking like ponies and balloons for everyone.
You post supporting every private sector worker in the U.S having a pension.

See that's not going to happen. Just like every kid won't have a pony for Christmas either.

We can't make the private sector pay pensions anymore..that's not going to happen.
You know it and I know it..

So I'm quite clear in what I support.

But as I said you feel that some are better than others.

I don't feel that way and neither should you unless ... pray tell you are one of the nobles getting a tax payer funded pension



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:15 AM

61. here's where you call someone elitist because they pay $3000/month for health insurance

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1884004

you called him elitist after he explained that it was cheaper when he was working but he said he was on cobra and that means he lost his job and has been covering the cost, probably out of money he doesn't have while trying to make a living by being self employed.

and you called him an elitist.

i really don't think you like liberals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #61)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:20 AM

72. So do you care to address my question or not? Are you one of the nobles

 

receiving a taxpayer sponsored government pension on the backs of the working class that are struggling to make ends meet .
The working class that receive no pensions or will ever have an opportunity to receive one.

People that have a mind set as your self are neither progressives nor Democrats.

People like you are all about ME and the hell with the rest of the blue collar workers in this country.

I deserve it is you mentality , it doesn't matter about anyone else.
You are part of the problem not the solution. How does that feel?


And
As for the link you posted the members can read the thread and decide who's side I'm on



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #42)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:33 AM

63. Because...

They take the job under the reasonable assumption that it will (or could) last until retirement. And they are also represented by labor unions that negotiated for those rights.

No elected official should EVER take the job with the assumption that it will be his or hers for life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:20 AM

70. why do all workers deserve a pension

thats what a paycheck is for...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:00 PM

19. Or change their pension to social security payments

and see how fast there is suddenly plenty of money to increase benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:41 PM

35. You obviously have no idea how the system works

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:13 PM

85. You obviously missed my point.

Which is: if Congress had any sort of stake in what the majority of the country will be living on in their old age - that system would be a hell of a lot more secure and robust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:36 PM

33. I don't believe in term limits and believe all people that work should have a pension.

I don't believe most should be reelected but that is the choice of the voters.

Always the "conservative" mind seeks to bring down that build up. I should have that too doesn't seem to come to mind because if I don't have it, why should they runs the show.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:42 PM

36. Hell no I'm not signing such an asinine pension

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:49 PM

41. How about banning them from becoming lobbyists

while also drawing a federal pension?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentauros (Reply #41)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:45 AM

52. yes this, and for doing so, i'm happy to offer a pension for their service

and to let them live conflict of interest free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #52)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:40 AM

66. I can go there...

Elsewhere I've posted that I'm opposed to pensions, but I could get behind the idea if the individual were truly "retiring" from politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:45 AM

51. It would be better to have a petition calling on Congress

to cease exempting itself from all the laws it passes...a tradition that means, among other things, that Congressional staffers and employees of Congress(the second group includes groups like the custodial staff, the folks who run the cafeteria, et.al.,)have almost NO protections under federal labor law.

That's a tradition that HAS to be brought to an end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:53 AM

53. Yes, let's penalise people who are called to public service.

It's so much better to have a revolving door between Congress and industry and to ensure that the only way elected officials can make any real money is by passing legislation they can profit off of when they go to work in that industry a few years later.

It's not like serving in Congress or being President involves any kind of learning curve. The faster the turnover the better. Why benefit from experience or working relationships built up over time? We need a Congress that runs more like a McDonalds with new fry cooks every three weeks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wickerwoman (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:39 AM

65. It's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic or describing how it ACTUALLY WORKS.

We now have "retired" congressmen taking their pension AND six-figure salaries to by lobbyists. So it's not like giving them a pension make them any more honest.

And you know what? McDonalds seems a hell of a lot more efficient than Congress. "Sorry, we can't give you the Big Mac you wanted because the cook is filibustering your order."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wickerwoman (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:21 AM

71. it would be better than one run by people who have been in their jobs 30-40-50 years

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #71)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:19 PM

74. Let me put it this way...

do you want your brain surgery performed by someone who does a two year rotation and then goes on to something else, or do you want it performed by someone who has done the same job for 30-40-50 years?

I think we forget in America that legislating- creating laws that have huge impacts on millions of peoples' lives- actually involves a bit more than writing your first thoughts down on a piece of paper and screaming bloody murder until everyone else accepts them. You need to understand the technical side of the issue, understand people's values in respect of it, forecast what the future impact will be, weigh all of the possible alternatives to see if your proposal is the most efficient and effective, understand how the proposal will sit within the context of other federal laws, state laws and international treaties and obligations, call on a network that can take decades to develop to find support, know how to negotiate effectively for a good outcome, etc.

Why do we have gridlock in Congress? Because we elect yahoos every two years whose only priority is getting reelected- not on proposing real solutions, learning about and understanding the issues in an intellectually honest way, working together, learning from the mistakes, building relationships, etc.

We had more effective governance before the fad for term limits came in in the 1990s. If the people wanted to elect Roosevelt ten times in a row that should have been their prerogative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #71)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:05 PM

78. you just asked for Pelosi to resign, do you want the discharge position she started to be stopped?

the discharge petition would require the House to vote on the president's request to continue the tax cuts for those making less than 250k/year.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1907522

Im calling for harry Reid,mitch McConnel,Nance Pelosi and John Boehner to resign.
they are the leaders of congress. the have all failed to lead.
so resign. now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:02 AM

54. Rick Perry is drawing his pension while he's governor

He banned it for all the other state workers a few years ago but he gets a pass because he "switched" jobs. (He went from one elected job to another)

Go figure. Only Rick Perry.

My husband works for the state. And Perry has screwed with our pensions big time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:51 AM

69. How would one attract the best and brightest (cough) w/o benefits?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:53 PM

76. Think of your petition as a corruption guarantee.

What I would do is put all pensions in the same, SACRED pot. If one is raided, all are diminished. And give shark teeth to the enforcement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:53 PM

77. Hell no! They would take Federal employees down with them!

 

And they have already taken a number of hits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forestpath (Reply #77)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:07 PM

79. the OP and other posters don't want pensions for public employees

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #79)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:55 PM

86. I know and I would like to know WTF they are doing on a board for DEMOCRATS!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forestpath (Reply #86)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:58 PM

87. working to cause division

hey, you asked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #79)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:57 PM

88. i dont want pensions for elected officials

theres a deifference between them and federal employees

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #88)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:11 PM

89. The difference isn't measured by job title

 

It is the end result that is significant.

No one should have a government sponsored pension by tax dollars unless all
workers in this country have the same opportunity.

This is the epitome of a society and mind set as is evident by some posters in this thread that it deserved .

All about me . That is such an obnoxious and self centered entitled thought process that it sickens me.

Saying I think all workers should get one also in the private sector but damn well knowing that will never happen
is the same mentality as the 1% have in this country.

ALL about me and the hell with the working class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:19 PM

81. kicked, recommended and facebooked, thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread